Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Promises, Promises
Consider the quotes below:
“It’s an effort that is going to take time, it’s going to take dialogue”
“You can’t budget based on that…we don’t know what they’re going to give us from one year to the next”
“Our experience has been, don’t count on it”
Now, are the quotes attributed to a public official talking about either (1) the Pittsburgh Promise, which is a fund that is supposed to provide free or discounted college tuition to graduates of City high schools or (2) the Pittsburgh Public Service Fund, which is the City’s agreement with non-profits who are voluntarily contributing to the City’s budget?
Suffice it to say, both the Promise and the Fund are ideas whose success or failure relies upon the contributions of somebody else’s money. But look at the different reactions to the two: audits from the City Controller’s office detail how much non-profits would be paying if they were taxable, a state Senate committee comes to town and mentions reexamining the state law that governs non-profit-municipal relations, and editorials urge hospitals, specifically UPMC, to pump its profits into the City’s coffers.
Yet the Pittsburgh Promise gets no such heat, no excoriating. An editorial noted that “while the Pittsburgh Promise may have suffered for being unveiled before it was ready, it doesn't help to criticize now. As ambitious as it is, it is a good idea and there's still time to make this work”. Would the kid gloves be taken off if the City and the School District had unveiled an idea to make money available for City residents who wanted to send their children to charter or private schools? You bet.
But with its actions on the Pittsburgh Promise, are the City and its schools acting that much different from the non-profits they often complain about?
“It’s an effort that is going to take time, it’s going to take dialogue”
“You can’t budget based on that…we don’t know what they’re going to give us from one year to the next”
“Our experience has been, don’t count on it”
Now, are the quotes attributed to a public official talking about either (1) the Pittsburgh Promise, which is a fund that is supposed to provide free or discounted college tuition to graduates of City high schools or (2) the Pittsburgh Public Service Fund, which is the City’s agreement with non-profits who are voluntarily contributing to the City’s budget?
Suffice it to say, both the Promise and the Fund are ideas whose success or failure relies upon the contributions of somebody else’s money. But look at the different reactions to the two: audits from the City Controller’s office detail how much non-profits would be paying if they were taxable, a state Senate committee comes to town and mentions reexamining the state law that governs non-profit-municipal relations, and editorials urge hospitals, specifically UPMC, to pump its profits into the City’s coffers.
Yet the Pittsburgh Promise gets no such heat, no excoriating. An editorial noted that “while the Pittsburgh Promise may have suffered for being unveiled before it was ready, it doesn't help to criticize now. As ambitious as it is, it is a good idea and there's still time to make this work”. Would the kid gloves be taken off if the City and the School District had unveiled an idea to make money available for City residents who wanted to send their children to charter or private schools? You bet.
But with its actions on the Pittsburgh Promise, are the City and its schools acting that much different from the non-profits they often complain about?
